JUDGMENT -D.R. DHANUKA, J.:—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1982 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Suit No. 127 of 1966. The appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff as the trial Court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff only in part and not in its entirety. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 died. The heirs of original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are brought on record of the suit and are impleaded as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal. The respondent No. 3 in the appeal was original defendant No. 3 in the said suit. The respondent No. 3 claims to be subsequent transferee for value without notice. The respondent No. 3 has filed Cross-objections as permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant Nos. 1 2 have not filed any objections against the findings recorded by the trial Court in favour of the appellant herein. The parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff, original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and original defendant No. 3.

2. On 29-8-1966, Murlidar Bapuji Valve, the appellant herein, (i.e. the original plaintiff) filed Special Suit No. 127 of 1966 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pune seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14-2-1966 arrived at between the plaintiff and original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff impleaded Madhavrao Baburao Kathilkute as defendant No. 3 in the said suit in view of defendant No. 3 claiming to be subsequent purchaser of the suit property under sale deed dated 4-8-1966 executed by original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 3 was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of contract dated 14-2-1966. The defendant No. 3 contended that the defendant No.3 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The plaintiff also made an alternative claim in the plaint for refund of various amounts paid by the plaintiff to original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and for damages. The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement in the suit. The defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiff had no right to seek specific performance of the suit agreement as the plaintiff has no funds at the material time and as the period of the suit agreement had expired. Thus the defendant No. 1 disputed that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the suit contract at all times. The plaintiff has contended throughout that simultaneously with execution of the suit agreement i.e. on 14th February, 1966, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had handed over actual possession of the suit lands to the plaintiffs as stated in the suit agreement itself and since then the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff contends that the defendants No. 1 and 2 handed over possession of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 denied that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had handed over possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended in the plaint that immediately after taking possession of the suit lands in part performance of the agreement, the plaintiff had ploughed the lands and made development therein. The defendant No. 1 disputed the correctness of this averment. The defendant No. 1 contended that the defendant No. 1 had rightly executed the impugned sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 as the plaintiff had committed breach of the suit agreement and the suit agreement was therefore required to be cancelled and actually cancelled. According to the version of defendant No. 1 in the written statement, the defendant No. 3 is in possession of the suit lands since 4-8-1966. The defendant No. 3 filed his written statement in the suit. The defendant No. 3 contended that on the date wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document